Darwin Evan S, Jaller Jose A, Hirt Penelope A, Kirsner Robert S
University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL.
Wound Manag Prev. 2019 Jan;65(1):36-41.
Wound area measurements provide an objective assessment of wound healing; however, most commonly used measurement techniques are imprecise.
A new portable 3-dimensional (3D) wound measurement device was tested against laser- and hand-measurement methods.
A retrospective comparative analysis was conducted to analyze the difference in wound measurements using records of patients seen at the University of Miami Hospital (Miami, FL) outpatient wound healing clinic between November 2017 and February 2018 who had wounds of various etiologies measured using 3 different techniques during a single visit: the 3D device, a laser-assisted wound measurement device (laser), and standard hand measurements. Patients with circumferential wounds were excluded (the laser and 3D devices are incapable of assessing these wounds). Differences were compared using paired t tests.
The wounds ranged in area from 0.8 cm² (hand measurements) and 0.2 cm² (3D and laser devices) to 100.94 cm², 61.9 cm², and 65 cm² by hand measurement, 3D, and laser device, respectively. Among the 23 wounds measured, the majority (16) were venous ulcers. No statistically significant difference was noted between the 3D measurements compared with the laser (P = .340). Statistically significant differences in the measurements between the 3D device and hand measurements (P = .008) and the laser device and hand measurements (P = .006) were found.
Measurements of the 3D device appear analogous to laser devices, making it an alternative tool for clinicians interested in monitoring wound progression. Because the 3D device has the capacity to examine wound volume, prospective comparative trials should be used to examine the accuracy and precision of the device to measure volume.
伤口面积测量为伤口愈合提供了客观评估；然而，最常用的测量技术并不精确。
将一种新型便携式三维（3D）伤口测量设备与激光测量法和手工测量法进行对比测试。
进行回顾性对比分析，利用2017年11月至2018年2月在迈阿密大学医院（佛罗里达州迈阿密）门诊伤口愈合诊所就诊患者的记录，分析使用三种不同技术在单次就诊时测量各种病因伤口的差异：3D设备、激光辅助伤口测量设备（激光）和标准手工测量。排除有环形伤口的患者（激光和3D设备无法评估此类伤口）。使用配对t检验比较差异。
伤口面积范围从0.8平方厘米（手工测量）和0.2平方厘米（3D和激光设备测量）到100.94平方厘米、61.9平方厘米和65平方厘米，分别通过手工测量、3D和激光设备测量得出。在测量的23个伤口中，大多数（16个）为静脉性溃疡。3D测量与激光测量之间未发现统计学上的显著差异（P = 0.340）。发现3D设备与手工测量之间（P = 0.008）以及激光设备与手工测量之间（P = 0.006）的测量存在统计学上的显著差异。
3D设备的测量结果似乎与激光设备类似，这使其成为有兴趣监测伤口进展的临床医生的替代工具。由于3D设备有能力检查伤口体积，应采用前瞻性对比试验来检验该设备测量体积的准确性和精确性。
